As a regular YSBK user I notice that the plan originally derived by BAL just hasn't come about. I believe the concept was to price GA out of the market, thus making way for RPT and jet ops.

Phase one was successful, GA has been effectively priced out. But the hoped for RPT never came. Why? There is no infrastructure near YSBK to support it. No trains, busses or even a cab rank. When old mate airline disgorges a bunch of passengers, where are they supposed to go?

There is a terminal building that I have never seen open. But it has a car park filled with UNSW students, and not even a turning circle or drop off point. Welcome to Bankstown, I hope you have arranged a lift, on a bicycle, or rickshaw, or have the ability to teleport. It's the only way you're getting out of here.

I am sure that if 50% of the blokes who learned to fly at AF who now earn big$ "following their dream" followed the above advice, the AACC may be able to save AF.

It is not much use to have onsite accommodation if there is no flying schools left. But there is always Griffith Uni just up the road who would probably welcome more student accommodation for overseas students.

Are there any GA airfields in Australia that are flourishing?

Parts have zero to do with an hourly rate. The standard hourly rate for a car is around $150 plus an hour. Most work shops are o. Around $100 plus or minis an hour.
Lames don't set the rate the time taken or the cost of parts. It's no different to anything else. If you can't afford to maintain your aircraft to the level required sell it.
This blame the lame is just bull s$&&. The engineer has been supporting GA for ever. Time come now where it's not going to happen in the future.

Temora, perhaps, due to their airpark and the aviation museum?


Gatton? A private airpark. Wedderburn? Privately owned by its' users.

Quote: hi cleared,
"My far more technologically advanced", yep,
Bingo! (Read, much higher investment, development and technology)

" much harder working car"
Incorrect.

What about the $150 charge just to plug into the work shop computer to give you a code. That's it then the spare part cost that your held to ransom over.

Our what about when you need a solicitor. How much are you charged for a phone call. Photo copying. Etc etc.

When you all relize how we'll you all been getting it for maintenance maybe then you may wake up how we'll you been looked after. How much do you think it cost the average shop just to comply wit casa regs. Tooling. Workshop manuals. Tool calibration. Etc etc. then you take your aircraft away and expect that you can pay later and use the maintenance org as your personal bank acct.

Then put up with the casa clowns.

No wonder why work shops are closing down and no ones coming through.

So tell me what dose the basic cost for a maintenance library cost and then how much a year to keep it current ?

Edited by Charlie Foxtrot India

I think the posts above prove my earlier point about the lack of civility between participants in the industry.....

So we go from the topic being bankstown airport-desperately sad, to this?
I think some professionalism on all sides would be good.
All of this is counter productive and does nothing more than to build
Contempt and disdain.
Cleared, then go somewhere where they can give you better service,
Don't put up with it if this is truly your experience.

The general consensus is that part of the problem with increasing costs in GA is tied in to the sell off of all the secondary airports.
I know that a lot of maintenance bases struggle to come up with the monthly lease Fee that has been imposed onto them, as the new owners of the airports sell off what land they can, and open up the rest to commercial operators whom are able to cover their lease costs far easier.
The hourly rate has lagged and has not increased at the same rate as most other industries over the last 20 years.
Rarely do I see the actual hours recorded and billed to most jobs either, hours are always cut off the bill, although this is probably happening less as the remaining maintenance bases tighten up due to their overheads increasing at sometimes 10% a year.
The recognition that general aviation is a unique and valuable industry probably resonates little with government departments.
Maybe the answer from here on in is the creation of more private-aero club style aerodromes for the smaller end of GA.

The fact is that as the hourly rate for engineers has increased to become well over 50% of the charge out rate, then the overheads to soak up the remaining, there is little to attract people to enter the world of owning-running an aircraft maintenance business.
After all, by the time you have spent the average 10 years or so to gain your licenses and grow your experience base, are privileged enough to gain a CofA,
find a facility, tool up, manuals, insurance etc etc, you would fairly expect to be able to expect modest return commensurate with the qualifications, and risk.
But that does not happen.
For an industry that apparently is full of thieves and open cheque books, I fail to see engineers living the high life! Far far from it.
Your best bet to lower the cost of maintenance, is, for example, just a thought,
Find someone who has the land, the Will to open an air park not too far from the action. Create an aero club or syndicate, everyone chip in to build a hanger-maybe issue shares. Them employ an engineer or two.
That way all you pay is wage rate plus a few percent to cover other associated costs.
Air parks are nothing new. Just a thought. That might work for private owners,
Would that work for a training institute?

Perspective wrote:


"The recognition that general aviation is a unique and valuable industry probably resonates little with government departments."


I agree. And the Federal and State pollies, likewise. That's our problem!

Forget the car comparison. If you must compare it
To anything, look at how fighters have developed over
Time. We don't fly P-51's any more, billions of dollars
Of investment results in a modern, reliable F18.
Bar the avionics, GA design and construction is pretty much still
At the mustang Era.
The topic is lowering costs, overheads.
Automotive sector is a massive market with billions in
Investment, Toyota sell, what a million cars a year?
They've sold over 40 million corolla's alone since the brand
Started.
As I said, GA is a unique industry, for ALL of our overheads
To be kept under control, a solution for all, must be
Found.
Symbiosis!

The comparison is that your car is deposable your aircraft in is. The manufacture of these old aircraft did not ever think they still be flying now. As these aircraft age there cost to maintain them is going to increase. It's not my job or any maintenance org to subsidise this. As it stands the amount of hours we cut is mind blowing.
And as know one has stated as yet a library to set up is going to be around 25 k to set up and around 10k a year to keep up to date. That's before you even undone a panel

I wish people would stop drinking before they post. It's so difficult to comprehend some of these.

Here is the big difference between my car mechanic and my LAME -

I can ask both of them the same question for a quote, how long to replace the exhaust manifold on my - LAME, airplane - mechanic, car.

I get roughly the same answer, 3 hours.

The mechanic got this answer by looking in a book that listed my model of car, and the part that needed replacing and it gave an approximate time for it. He showed me this book, but I can't remember exactly what it was called.

I have no idea how my LAME arrived at this conclusion.

The mechanic had a spare guy standing around, so he helped on the job, and got it done in 2 hours, and I was charged 2 hours for the job and was able to pick the car up on time.

The LAME also had 2 guys work on my plane, at the same time, and charged me 2 X 3 hours for a total of 6 hours to complete the 3 hour job...

Cars have been intentionally engineered to be low maintenance. Aircraft stopped being engineered in the '70s

If you were trying to keep a 1965-model car on the road you might have spent a small fortune by now too*, especially if the guvmint tells you you can't touch it yourself.

(* as well as having bad fuel consumption, poor crash safety and no airconditioning)

yr right, way to miss the point entirely. It wasn't about the the specifics of the job, it was about HOW LAMEs charge. I have absolutely no idea what you are banging on about for the rest of your post. Try again, but in english this time?

Andy, my car was in the last 100 serial numbers of it's type to be built in 1989, which was designed in the 70's and put into service in the early 80s. No computers etc etc. Also, I have excellent fuel consumption, all things considered, AND A/C! I think I should be fine in a car vs car crash, but I wouldn't like to test it on a tree...!

Guys,
Dick smith started this thread with an aim I believe to have a
Discussion about the state of secondary airports, costs associated
With them and any one with ideas as to how to inject some positive
Changes.
I posted an idea, I don't mind if it is Poo Poo'd, as long as you have a
Better one.
Inevitably it turns into a LAME bashing thread.
Jack, I respect what you are saying and your views, keep your "thieves" comments to your self, bloody Offensive, and does nothing more than invite others with similar thoughts Rightly or wrongly, to comment, completely hijacking the intent Dick had When opening the Thread.
I'm glad you are the obviously the proud owner of an RV10, great simple
Little plane. Not everyone has the choice of being in experimental Cat. Though.
What for them.
Back on topic.

Cars engineered to be low maintenance. I think not. Car engineered to be assembled on a production line. Large components bing bam thank you next. That is till they require repair.
Like a switch in a mates European car. $154 for the switch. 4000$ to change it. Requires the whole dash and most of the engine to be dismantled to gain access to the dash bolts.

The philosophy of aircraft has not changed and never will. Something that not a large requirement in a motor car.

Weight !!

I drove around Bankstown today and visited a few flying schools, trying to hire a Cessna 172 (with absolutely no success by the way - anyone who's interested please let me know if you have a 172 you would like to hire out occasionally). It was a Sunday with perfect weather, and the place was almost completely dead. I spotted just three aircraft landings in one hour, and a couple of rich guys taking helicopter hovering lessons.

Delving into the costs of operating at Bankstown, the answer becomes clear: it is far too expensive to run a business there, or even park your own plane. I would have to say, the reason is almost certainly that the owners indeed want to sell off the airport to property developers. It's a large, flat piece of land that would be worth billions. Once the airport is dead enough, the owners can plead that they have no alternative but to shut it down and sell it off. From the owners' point-of-view, several years of (I'm guessing) multi-million-dollar losses are easily worth a payoff of a few billion.

For info, I have heard that the Georges River golf club (adjacent to Bankstown airport) has been, or is about to be sold to B.A.L. Interesting.

Great - maybe it'll be cheaper to land on the green.

this would allow extension of runway(s).


Skyforce have 1 or 2 146's, but don't think they can take off with a full load on present runway.

Apathy alive and well in Apastralia
 

Perspective is on the right track - few of you appear to be aware of or even interested in the non compliance by Airport LEASE holders of their obligations under their long term LEASES. Neither is our bureaucracy which is where the corruption issue is so blatantly obvious. Annual AUDITS, adherence to contractual terms, obligation under Retail Leases Acts etc etc. all covered in the LEASES but no one bureaucrat interested.

Archerfield chamber of commerce have done a great job in identifying these and many other shortcomings and now the Moorabbin CC has also come on board, but industry support is almost non existent ! Maybe it's time instead of complaining amongst yourselves about excessive charges you took the time to read the official Acts and leases and see who is ripping you off and who is standing by and letting them. Get involved.

As to the selling off of land this is not possible with leasehold. BAL and other Airport operators are permitted to sub lease to others by building commercial structures eg. Bunnings. Good luck to them provided it doesn't interfere with Aviation. (loss of runways etc)

As to establishing private airfields, good idea but who will convince the local councils, planning/ zoning etc when even at the Cwth level there is no support. Operators join your local Chamber or Action group as AOPA appears a total waste of time when it comes to anything aviation. A USA AOPA would never have even let it get started. Apathy is alive and well in Apastralia, long live corrupt bureaucrats.

"Empty Skies are Safe Skies"

Moorabbin airport has had the additional land returned from lease to the council golf course now for 4 years or so. The master plan map shows an extension of 13L/31R and associated terminal for RPT, but it's only listed as potential development with no time frame. I would guess the land around the actual approach paths will soon be all factories and non-aviation related businesses. The only thing stopping the approach paths from being used is the land use requirements, but how long will that be in place if the runway extensions don't go ahead soon.

The white paper produced by the government appeared very supportive of general aviation as a whole if I remember correctly, Will that turn into something tangible.
I am aware of a couple of times in the last few years of councils being supportive of the creation of a maintenance base by way of interest free loan etc.

Councils are pretty savvy these days, so although entirely possible,
I think you would have to attach to any proposal, a pretty robust, honest
Return of investment estimate, services gained and how attractive it might be
To an existing community.
In remote locations it would be easy to justify, but obviously that's not where most keep their aircraft.
As most of us live coastal, maybe the selling point for government and council would be the ability to, more easily service fire bombing aircraft for example.

The state government are only too happy to spend millions on leasing fire fighting and support aircraft and infrastructure, how about spending a few percent of that on government land to build some runways and a few hangars, some private body's, flying groups etc, can be the "body corporate" in effect, and viola', now you have a facility that the government wants, community want, and not held to ransom by private corporations. Just a thought.

I don't think you understand the difference between repair and maintenance. Old cars were relatively easy to repair, but they required lots of maintenance. Newer cars are vastly more complex, with way more widgets and gadgets, but spend many more km on the road before they require even the very rudimentary scheduled maintenance that they do now. Of course, complex things are expensive to repair, but that's not maintenance and in fleet terms, recalls and design/production stuff-ups excepted, is relatively rare.

Look at the distance cars travel these days before they're considered scrap! 200k+ is common, and taxis seeing half a million clicks before things start to be replaced in earnest! Unthinkable twenty or thirty years ago.

Yeah, well perhaps you should leave the design philosophy to the designers. Weight is only one of the many design criteria. The real problem is that (GA) aircraft designs haven't actually moved on much from the 50's production technology, except perhaps in the less regulated sectors like LSA... If we were still driving around in 1980's Magnas and VB Commodores, driving would be as **** as flying in the certified aircraft fleet is today!

FFS..........
I have not seen anyone yet, that come close to addressing Dick's original question.
His offer to do costings.
Here is a question then.
All of the fire fighting aircraft to a large degree are kept, maintained, assembled and initially at least, Operated from airports owned in a lot if cases at sold off secondary airports I assume. As such, the cost built in to contracts to cover these expenses must be significant, particularly when operating Very large fire fighting turbo props or jets.
What is the cost of operating at these airports.

-Parking, landing fees, transport to effected areas eg.(most bush fires are not at inner city burbs)
- what would be the savings to infrastructure with reduced time to effected areas and ability to operate larger aircraft closer to where they are needed.
-what could the projected savings be over the next century as people and infrastructure continue to move into more densely tree'd (bush land) areas.

I don't blame the guys who now own the secondary airports, for the most part, I highly doubt most of the people associated with them are too enthusiastic about aviation in general, in other words, GA aviation exists to a large degree because of peoples enthusiasm
For flying, love of it even, sense of adventure, it gets romanticised a lot if you will.
They have every right to engineer for profit, we will never be able to compete with amatil coca-cola or schenker logistics, or even Jeep. Essendon airport, most likely still exists only due to the major corporate Bizjet activity, and the people that own them.
So as it becomes clear that they can make significantly more money from large logistics companies and wharehouses, why other than their contractural obligations would they not lean that way.
Would a landing field reduced to just helicopter movements still qualify as an airport?

As the urban sprawl continues, incidents become more of a Media melodramatic plaything, and liability becoming more of a focus, land becomes more valuable, there will be pressure to move airports with a "large amount" of activity away from built up areas.
All of this is going in one direction.

I believe investment is sort of happening (airport upgades)with the government grants that have been on offer, so
In that respect it has been encouraging and supportive, although this does not change
The crux of the issue at larger, corporate owned inner area, airports.

Well, I'm not sure if this is useful or not, but here it goes.

I was getting to the point a month ago where I almost bought an aircraft for the first time, a Piper Pacer. I could afford to buy it, I could afford to insure it, I could afford to run it... I couldn't afford to store it. I'm a normal person and purchasing an aircraft was something I wanted to do out of love, completley lacking in any fiscal common sense, but my passion for flying is such that I was very keen. But it was just too much. Maybe in a few years... after everything has increased in price again

Now this wasn't at Bankstown, I can only imagine that BK would be worse in terms of aircraft storage. Paying thousands of $$ a year just to park an aircraft inside a shed, or even on a patch of grass is a bit of a killer. I'm not sure what the other fee's are like at BK, but they all add up.

I'm aware this isn't any great insight, I guess all I'm tryingt to point out is that GA might be busier in a private capacity if people weren't getting screwed out of every $ they have before they even get to say "clear prop." The passion is there for me, but its just too much.

I think his question was addressed in the second post.

...and his offer was to do cost savings, not costings...

Junior,

YSBK charge you over $30 a day just to park outside on the grass.

Over $900 a month, just to cast a shadow over their land. It's not like they don't have the space either! $900 a month, that doesn't value add to the aviation experience. It doesn't keep your plane out of the elements. It is a ripoff, plain and simple. I really don't know how they justify such a charge?! I'm sure it doesn't cost them ANYWHERE near that amount for you to park.

That really is just outrageous.

I love flying more than I love anything, and it saddens me that in order to pursure my passion I need to either completley ignore every other financial aspect of my life, or win the lottery! :{

hangarage at YSBK is far less than the parking on the grass charge....

The $30 a day parking on the grass, hangarage fees etc are all I imagine calculated down to the square foot based on the present day valuation of the land, I cannot imagine what that would be but I wouldn't be surprised if it ran into a billion.

Deals can be done for hangarage I know, but 120K a year for a small hangar that might fit six cherokee's, if you can find one thats not full of carpets, furniture, tractors or cranes still runs to more than parking outside.

The commonwealth didn't pay a cent for the land but eventually charged through the FAC to park on it. Admittedly at a reduced rate.

They then leased but really sold it to the current owners for a couple of hundred Mil for the three airports, BK, CN, and Hoxton, which the new owners flogged off straight away for pretty much what they paid for the lot.

Probably most of that went in McBank management fees because BAL has some serious debt now even after flogging Hoxton.

Privatisation of our airports I believe can never be called as a success except for the interests of them that bought them.

It did nothing for the government because they haven't received a cent in tax since.

It hasn't been a success for the public, our airports rating very poorly around the world.

Its been a major disaster for the industry that uses them, captive to monopolies able to milk them of every cent they can.

I also believe that the corruption that has occurred with all the secondary airports make Eddie Obeid look like a saint.

Wedderburn looks very busy and healthy, as does Mittagong, as does The Oaks, as do many small strips near Sydney that are owned or leased by people other than spiv property developers. I anticipate that many of the aircraft based at those places have a lot of owner-maintenance carried out on them as well.

QUOTE I anticipate that many of the aircraft based at those places have a lot of owner-maintenance carried out on them as well QUOTE.


Human behaviour is a perpetually fascinating subject. CasA think like that too.

You're another interesting case, Frank.

I'll rephrase what I said, to include words that I thought were implied. I anticipate that many of the aircraft based at those places have a lot of perfectly legal owner-maintenance carried out on them as well.

My father was in the equivalent of the army engineers and help build underground culverts at Bankstown during WWII.

He doesn't qualify for government assistance because he wasn't in a war zone, he spent his 21st birthday away from home.




Mickjoebill

They had to pay an annual payment to the council to compensate for the fact there would be no ratepayers there.

We still pay those "rates" though the only service the local shire provides is emptying the bins...and we have to pay separately for that. :ugh:

Who maintains the road to the aerodrome?